First, what was the cause of the split? Caleb Chung in Tae Gu has always been my brother with a different mother. He was always on my opponent’s side in his mind. In order to melt his heart, I bore with him for the last 30 years. But it didn’t work. He became the leader of rebellion.

The above excerpt is from 2001 New Year's address by Samuel lee. This particular message by samuel lee shows a lot about his personality and his intellectual and spiritual capacity. In the excerpt, he is trying to analyze the cause of the split in ubf organization. He argues that "Caleb Churng" is the first cause of the split because "he was always on my opponent's side in his mind." His argument is poor in the sense that he blames only one person for the big split in his organization instead of trying to address the issues that led to the split of his organization. He admits that Caleb Chung was alwasy on his opponent's side in his mind. From this premis he concludes that Calbe Chung was the main cause of the split. That is what makes his argument poor because it does not necessarily mean that opposing views lead to division.

If he knew that Caleb Chung was on his opponent's side, he should have deduced that the fact that Caleb Chung was on the opposite side should have contributed to the split. Then from that premise, he should have concluded that whatever had been making Caleb Chung stand on the opposite side could have been the real cause of the split.

It seems that he knew why Caleb Chung was on his opponent's side. He says that he tried to solve this issues by trying "to melt his heart, I bore with him for the last 30 years." He completely ignores any issues present between him and Caleb Chung. But instead he tried to "melt his heart." This shows a lot about his personality. If there is some real issue, maybe in his personality or in his organization, and a person objects it, he will try to solve the problem by melting the person's heart instead of trying to address the real issue itself. In other words, instead of trying to address the issue at hand, he would rather try to melt the person's heart so that the person would change his mind about the issue and finally admit that there is no real issue. In this way, he bore with "him" instead of "solving the issue." He thinks that he can solve a person's opposition by melting his heart without solving the real issue that has raised the opposition. Maybe this was the real cause of the ubf split.

Another point is that he thinks that any person who is on his opposite side is leading rebellion against him. How could one conclude that a person is leading rebellion just because he has a opposing opinion? Anyone who holds that kind of view clearly reveals flaws in his intellectual and spiritual capacity. How could samuel lee have implemented such doctrines in his organization with the one-to-one Bible study and strict "divine disciplines" among many college students? It could be very interesting topic to study to understand young college students. Coudl it be that young college students at the most vulnerable stage of their life seek some kind security through the this kind of doctrines?

I find it very interesting to note that many cult leaders make "divisions", "splits" or whatever you call "attempts to reform" to be a personal issue between them and another allegedly power-hungry person that "is trying to overthrow God's deputy authority".I had witnessed the same thing in the "Local Church". Forget about the fact that the leader was a power-monger and his own family was taking advantage of the church, forget about heretical doctrine, forget about financial exploitation and misappropriated funds: according to the leader there was and is only ONE problem: someone trying to steal God's authority from them.

At least, that's how they phrase it.It's ridiculous. When cult leaders see their power challenged by a demand for transparency, uprightness, godliness, they try to make it a personal issue between them and whoever the highest ranking leader who challenged them was.

It's nothing new. It happens so often. Don't get fooled by such a simplistic powerplay.

If there is some real issue, maybe in his personality or in his organization, and a person objects it, he will try to solve the problem by melting the person's heart instead of trying to address the real issue itself.

In the eyes of power monger cult leaders, the whole idea that they could do anything wrong or be the cause of any problem is completely unthinkable. They believe they are the center of the universe and everything is revolving around them, they believe whatever they do is right by definition. That's the point of origin of all their thinking and doing, from this they derive everything else. Anybody who does not agree with them "has a problem."

In the same message, he again says, Second, how they persuaded so many coworkers in their group. Matthew Byun of Chun Ju has always been one who crept in. He is a friend of Caleb Chung. Matthew Byun planted easy-going mentality to so many junior shepherds. He said to them that we don’t have to do one-to-one Bible study and that we don’t need discipleship training; we must all separate and make a church system and have a general assembly meeting every two years. Those who are lazy-minded were all persuaded very quickly.

He argues that "Matthew Byun planted easy-going mentality to so many junior shepherds. He said to them that we don’t have to do one-to-one Bible study and that we don’t need discipleship training; we must all separate and make a church system and have a general assembly meeting every two years." His argument is somewhat disturbing because he seems to have negative perspective on "making a church system." Then what kind of system does he have in mind to be implemented in his ubf organization? If Matthew Byun did suggest that it was necessary to make a church system, why is samuel lee trying to associate that idea with easy-going mentality and even with rebellion? What is wrong with making a church system? Is he saying that he is against the idea of a church system in general? What kind of system is his ubf system? Is he saying that his ubf system is not a church system? Is this view the general view of a church system among ubf leaders? It is quite disturbing. Anyway his intellectual and spiritual perspective on a church system revealed in the message is very much disturbing.

The only supporting ideas he gives against making a church system might be the practice of one-to-one Bible study and discipleship training. But in presenting these as supporting evidences(?) he is presupposing that one-to-one Bible study should be the only form of the Bible study and whatever he has in mind about "discipleship training" should be the only form of discipleship training. Obvisously that argument does not hold as he claims. There have been many questions raised against these ubf practices among "so many coworkers" as he admits. So he does not seem to argue about Bible study itself and discipleship training itself. Rather he seems to argue that Bible study should be done "in his ways" and discipleship training should be done "in his ways". If he really does hold this idea, then we might conclude that there would be a lot of problems for him to implement "his own ways" of Bible study and discipleship training in a church system.

This shows also very clearly the two-tongue speak of UBF officials. To the public and the media, they claim they are an ordinary "church" that follows all usual standards. Doesn't Chicago UBF even have a sign that says "UBF church"? But actually, they do not want to be a church. They want to be an authoritarian leader-ruled club that does not need to follow any church standards. Here in this internal letter, Samuel Lee admits that even thinking about having a church system is "rebellion." human12, you're right in pointing out that this letter reveals a lot about the evil power-monger spirit of Samuel Lee. Actually, we don't even need the anti UBF websites, if people would read the writings of Samuel Lee with an open and careful mind. It is so apparent that Lee was an egomanic, boastful, deceptive power monger and also a spiritual charlatan.

By analyzing the above words and actions of EE very closely, and then comparing them with the Bible (and with basic logic and common sense and decency) we can see that Mr. EE was not very Christian at this important moment. He did not handle the split situation as a Christian man would.

What I learned, after getting out of ubf and talking to many former members, was that Mr. EE did not behave in a Christian manner at any important time. When various people left or were expelled, when he handled money, when he lied, when he slandred others, when he demanded divorces and abortions and beatings, this man never displayed the behavior of even an immature Christian.

James Kim formerly of Toledo, who was deceived, betrayed, and then expelled by Mr. EE (and Paul Hong), once described EE's actoins as Machiavellian. to me, that really fits the behavior of Mr. EE. After learning so much about how bad and even ungoaldy this man's behavior was, I came to the conclusion that he was not a Christian. I came to the conclusion that he was a false apostle as described in II Corinthians 11. Mr. EE never carried out the duties in the manner of the Bible, he just did whatever he wanted, and I came to beleive he did it all for himself. I just think that the rest of them are no different than EE. They don't care about the ways of God or about any people at all. They jsut care aobut themselves, and they stick together to cover for each other. ubf is really the headquarters of false apostles.